City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Brightwell Bros. said:
I'm astonished by how much rival fans have been whipped into a frenzy over this one. Just had a look at Sam's Lee article and fans are wanking themselves silly that we won't exist by Christmas. It's a challenge to a sub-clause that didn't exist in February using emergent interpretations of competition law. "Tyranny of the majority" is a standard phrase in law/politics to suggest that just because something is democratic doesn't make it just or legal. Anyone would think we've gone to the houses of commons and demanded the election cease to happen.
Click to expand...
P
jrb said:
Ian Byrne, yet another nut job Scouser, and MP, is probably going to take it to PM’s question time. Lol! :-)

Click to expand...


Does Ian know that City are the only club in favour of an independent regulator…
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
Wow, and as someone added in reply

He is "quoting a line from a leaked legal document that nobody has seen and is supposed to be completely confidential written by a KC.How is this "City describing themselves" or "a PR own goal"?

Click to expand...

Have left this reply to our Mr Darke's tweet...

"As a staunch fan of MCFC, I am not in the least embarrassed by the behaviour of our club.Now, I would be embarrassed if my clubs sponsors were found guilty of laundering money for terrorist organizations; or if my clubs fans were guilty of causing the deaths of Italian fans"
 
34yearsandstillgoingstrong said:
Interesting ! Given the above, could someone enlighten me on this point : I've read a number of differing accounts as to when the Premiership adopted and took on Gill's "Get City FFP" rules from UEFA - I think it was in 2015 ?. I recall the media headlines at the time rejoicing that the Premiership would now have their turn to try and sink City . If I recall correctly - didn't 6 clubs ( City, AV, and 4 others ) vote against their adoption and at the very last moment Reading abstained enabling the usual suspects to get their motion through. The voting would therefore have been 13 for / 6 against. I always understood that Reading's mysterious last minute abstention swung the vote in favour of adopting Gill's FFP and yet the voting in favour ( 65% ) did not meet the 2/3 threshold . I'm sure I'm missing something or have got my facts wrong.
Click to expand...
13/19 (abstaining puts the member out of the running) is 68%. Passed
 
Gordyola said:
We admitted to non-cooperation due the Investigative Chamber and in particularly Leterme the chief investigator leaking like a sieve CAS reduced the fine substantially from E30M to E10M as they took into account City's mitigation
Click to expand...
I think this latest leak gives us more leverage when we get to the 115 non cooperation charges.
 
Blue Maverick said:
Watched Stefan on talkSPORT I wonder if the tyranny of majority vote is down to the fact you are supposed to have 14 to get a vote through, now back in Feb didnt only 12 vote yes, 6 no and 2 abstained but it was still carried! Maybe this is the point, it shouldn’t be carried unless 14 is hit. If 14 can’t be got then the vote is void until it’s reached because you could effectively have say the red tops vote yes 3 votes, City no, the rest abstain it would then be carried!
Click to expand...
Very good point it is too.
Definitely, the context of this remark has to be understood before any conclusions can be jumped to……
Unless you’re on X/Twitter or whatever.
 
Reminds me when channel 4 showed that brass eye episode about paedophiles. Politicians were up in arms, even discussing it in parliament, asking for it to be banned. When asked if they'd watched it, they said 'no, but I've heard about it'
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Martin Samuel has made this point. Newcastle can only make deals with Saudi companies that are at market value, if at al, whereas Manchester United could make a deal with the same company on any terms.l
Click to expand...
This. And the Premier League can also negotiate a sponsorship deal with the same company on any terms as well! Hence City calling out the Premier League for potentially having a "conflict of interest".
 
Jamshopbridge said:
This. And the Premier League can also negotiate a sponsorship deal with the same company on any terms as well! Hence City calling out the Premier League for potentially having a "conflict of interest".
Click to expand...
As someone else pointed out earlier, it the premier win we should just turn round and say 'OK we've just signed an even bigger contract with Amazon, Microsoft and Apple. Now what? '
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top